Mae J. Nam

The Union filed four grievances alleging the Employer breached the collective agreement and the Labour Relations Act during a labour dispute over the renewal of a Compressed Work Week Agreement.

The Union alleged the Employer acted in bad faith during negotiations, failed to provide 96 hours' notice of shift changes, breached the Provincial Overtime Protocol, created dangerous working conditions, targeted Union officials, and improperly required medical certificates for all sick absences.

The arbitrator dismissed the bad faith, notice, dangerous conditions, and anti-union animus claims.

The arbitrator allowed the grievance regarding the Provincial Overtime Protocol, issuing a declaration, and allowed the grievance regarding the blanket medical certificate requirement, ordering compensation for affected employees.

During an arbitration hearing, the Grievance Settlement Board directed the union and the employer to hold a meeting within 60 days to discuss the implementation and operationalization of time out of cell requirements under the Segregation Review and Oversight policy.

The Board ordered that no specific individual grievances or discipline be discussed at the meeting, and that neither party is permitted to bring counsel.

The employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss two grievances alleging workplace harassment, arguing they were barred by a prior Memorandum of Settlement (MOS) and the principle of the sanctity of grievance settlements.

The arbitrator found that the release clause in the MOS explicitly applied only to circumstances up to the date of signing, and the new grievances concerned a subsequent incident.

The employer's primary motion was denied.

However, the arbitrator upheld the employer's alternate motion, ruling that the union could not lead evidence relating to the prior settled grievances as background or context, as doing so would undermine the sanctity of the settlement.

The union filed three grievances alleging that the employer engaged in a course of harassment and reprisals against employees who raised safety concerns.

The employer brought preliminary motions to dismiss the first grievance as untimely and to dismiss all grievances for failing to establish a prima facie case.

The arbitrator found the first grievance was filed months late and declined to exercise discretion to extend the time limits, noting the lack of credible reasons for the delay.

However, the arbitrator dismissed the employer's motion regarding no prima facie case, finding that the union's particulars, if accepted as true, were capable of supporting its legal theory of a pattern of harassment and reprisals.

The remaining grievances will proceed to a hearing on the merits.

The Arbitrator issued a mutual production order in a grievance proceeding.

The Employer was ordered to produce a redacted OPP Intelligence Report to the Union, and the Union was ordered to produce arguably relevant medical documentation to the Employer.

Both productions were made subject to strict confidentiality conditions, limiting disclosure to counsel and instructing advisors, restricting copying, and prohibiting use outside the proceeding.

The parties agreed to amend a prior order dated July 6, 2021.

The Arbitrator ordered the amendment to allow union counsel to forward a copy of the Investigator's Report to two additional union officials, subject to the conditions set out in the original order.

At the commencement of the hearing, the union sought to call a witness who failed to attend despite being served with a summons.

The arbitrator noted that the summons legally obliged the witness to attend and directed the witness to appear at the reconvened electronic hearing.

The grievor failed to comply with two previous orders to produce medical documentation to the union and the employer by the specified deadline.

As a result of the non-compliance, the scheduled hearing was cancelled and all of the grievances were dismissed.

The Employer brought a motion to dismiss the consolidated grievances for abuse of process because the Grievor failed to comply with an interim order to produce medical documents related to her request for a medical accommodation for an inability to wear a face mask.

The Grievor, who wished to be self-represented, refused to provide the documents, disagreeing with the interim decision.

The Arbitrator declined to dismiss the case immediately, giving the Grievor a final opportunity to comply with the production order by a specified date, failing which the case would be dismissed.

The Grievance Settlement Board issued a consent order regarding the disclosure of the grievor's medical documents.

The order established conditions for the release of the documents to the employer's counsel, including that they be maintained as confidential, not disclosed to non-participants, and used solely for the purposes of the grievance proceeding.

The Member, a Registered Nurse, faced allegations of professional misconduct for documenting and billing for 13 home care visits that he did not attend while the patient was out of the country.

The Member admitted to the allegations, including falsifying records, misappropriating property, and engaging in dishonourable conduct.

The Discipline Committee accepted an Agreed Statement of Facts and a Joint Submission on Order, finding the Member guilty of professional misconduct.

The Member was reprimanded, his certificate of registration was suspended for three months, and conditions were imposed on his practice, including meetings with a Regulatory Expert and employer notification requirements.

The union filed a grievance alleging the grievor was improperly screened out and denied an interview for a permanent Trial Coordinator position.

The parties referred the matter to mediation/arbitration and requested a decision without written reasons.

The arbitrator found the screening process was flawed and ordered the employer to rerun the job competition, giving primary consideration to candidates' qualifications as of March 2017.

In a grievance arbitration concerning the Employer's alleged failure to accommodate the grievor's inability to wear a face mask, the Employer brought a motion for production of the grievor's underlying medical records.

The Union opposed, citing privacy and the mask mandate exemptions under O. Reg. 364/20.

The Arbitrator granted the motion, finding a clear nexus between the requested medical information and the core dispute over accommodation and subsequent discipline.

Production was ordered subject to strict confidentiality conditions limiting access to Employer counsel, one instructing advisor, and the Disability Accommodation Specialist.

The employer requested, with the agreement of the parties, to amend a previous order dated July 6, 2021, to reflect a change in union counsel.

The Grievance Settlement Board granted the request, amending the order to substitute the new union counsel for the former counsel, entitling the new counsel to receive copies of a report subject to the conditions of the original order.

The Employer requested an adjournment of a grievance arbitration hearing because its assigned counsel was on medical leave.

The Union opposed the request, arguing that further delay was prejudicial and that the Employer could assign different counsel.

The Arbitrator granted the adjournment, noting that requiring a party to proceed in the legitimate absence of retained counsel is prejudicial, and scheduled the next hearing date to address the Union's motion to consolidate multiple grievances.

The grievance was dismissed after the representative of the group, Kevin Douglas, failed to provide an explanation for his non-attendance at the scheduled hearing, as ordered in a previous decision.

The representative for a group grievance failed to attend the scheduled hearing.

The employer requested that the grievance be dismissed, while the union requested time to contact the representative.

The arbitrator ordered the representative to provide an explanation and supporting documentation for his non-attendance by a specified deadline, failing which the grievance would be dismissed.

In a grievance arbitration concerning the grievor's termination, the employer requested disclosure of the grievor's medical records.

The union sought to limit production to arguably relevant records within a specific timeframe and requested conditions on their handling, as well as anonymization of the grievor's identity.

The arbitrator ordered the union to disclose arguably relevant medical documents pertaining to the grievor's mental condition for the 12 months prior to termination, subject to strict confidentiality conditions.

The parties agreed to anonymize the grievor's identity in the decision.

The parties participated in a conference call regarding the disclosure of documents and the provision of particulars in a grievance arbitration.

The Arbitrator issued a consent order requiring the Employer to disclose the grievor's employment file, investigation files, and related documentation by May 15, 2020.

The Union was ordered to provide particulars relating to the grievor's allegations of sexual harassment by June 15, 2020.

In a bifurcated grievance arbitration concerning the duty to accommodate and alleged historic harassment, the Arbitrator issued procedural orders for the first phase of the hearing.

The Arbitrator imposed confidentiality conditions on the disclosure of the grievor's medical documents to the employer's counsel.

Additionally, both parties were ordered to produce particulars and documents relating to efforts to accommodate the grievor, including through telework and the Health Reassignment Program.

The employer was directed to present its evidence first.